Question:

So we can challenge the
science teachers in our schools and universities
about the origins of life.

So we can win arguments
about creation vs. evolution.

So we can prove that the
Bible is true.

So we can know more about
God by what He has done in creation.

The answer is number 4, “So
we can know more about God by what He has done in
creation.”

RO 1:19…that which is known about God is evident within
them; for God made it evident to them.

RO 1:20For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen, being understood through
what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Romans 1:19-20 (NASB)

1Pe
3:15…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone
who asks you to give the reason for the hope that
you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

1
Peter 3:15 (NIV)

The apostle Paul states in his letter to the Romans
that God’s eternal power and divine nature are
clearly seen through His creation so that man is
without excuse. However, note what the following
professional science associations have to say about
God and Science:

National Association of Biology Teachers

-“Explanations or ways of
knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural
events or beings, whether called “creation science,”
“scientific creationism,” “intelligent design
theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar
designations, are outside the realm of science…”
(6)

National Academy of Sciences

-“Some object to it
[evolution] on the grounds that evolution
contradicts the accounts of origins given in the
first two chapters of Genesis. Scientists have
considered the hypotheses proposed by creation
science and have rejected them because of a lack of
evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation
science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be
subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify
as scientific hypotheses.” (7)

National Science Teachers Association

-“Policy makers and
administrators should not mandate policies requiring
the teaching of… ‘arguments against evolution.’"
(8)

Based on the
statements above, what will their “excuse” be?

-What worldview are the above
statements based on?

-
Naturalism-Materialism-Evolution

-What is the presupposition
behind this worldview?

-That there is no God.

Ps 10:4In his
pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his
thoughts there is no room for God.

Psalm
10:4 (NIV)

PS 14:1The fool has said in his heart, “There is no
God.”

Psalm 14:1 (NASB)

INTRODUCTION

A Law is the highest-level science can achieve.
Below Laws are Theories, and Hypotheses. The
Scientific Method is the process by which data is
collected, interpreted and validated.

-Law is defined as:
a statement of an order or relation of phenomena
that so far as is known is invariable under the
given conditions. (10)

-Theory is defined as:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle or body of principles offered to explain
phenomena. (10)

-Hypothesis is defined
as: a tentative assumption made in order to
draw out and test its logical or empirical
consequences. (10)

-Scientific Method is
defined as: principles and procedures for
the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the
recognition and formulation of a problem, the
collection of data through observation and
experiment, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses. (10)

Everything we observe in the universe operates
according to known natural laws.

-If the truth of a statement
is verified repeatedly in a reproducible way then it
can reach the level of a nat­ural law.

-Four well know and accepted
natural laws of science are:

1.The First Law of
Thermodynamics

2.The Second Law of
Thermodynamics

3.The Law of Cause and Effect

4.The Law of Biogenesis

Many times in the
creation/evolution debate, we hear or read the
statement: "Evolution is science and creation is
religion." Read the following statements:

American Geophysical
Union

-“’Creation Science’ is
based on faith and is not supported by scientific
observations of the natural world. Creationism
is not science...” (9)

National Science
Teachers Association

-“Explanations that are not
consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be
tested empirically are not a part of science.
As a result, explanations of natural phenomena that
are not based on evidence but on myths, personal
beliefs, religious values, and superstitions are not
scientific.” (8)

Are these statements
really true?

-To find out we will test each
model (creation and evolution) against the four laws
of science mentioned above to see which model is
more “scientific.”

-We will also look at the
scientific method and its limitations.

Definition
and Nature of Science

-“Science is a method of
explaining the natural world.”
(8)

-This
is a good definition of science.

-“ Science, by
definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and
explanations and, as such, is precluded from using
supernatural elements in the production of
scientific knowledge.”(8)

-What
is meant by “supernatural elements?” Isn’t
the Big Bang supernatural? The origin of matter, or
the origin of life cannot be explained in
naturalistic terms, they require faith.

-“Science assumes that
the universe operates according to regularities that
can be discovered and understood through scientific
investigations.”
(8)

-
The key word here is “assumes” and is just
another way of saying, “we don’t know.”
There are no naturalistic answers for questions such
as: What was the first cause that caused everything
else? Where did the matter come from? Where did
energy come from? Why hasn’t the universe wound
down? What is keeping it going?

-“Scientific knowledge
is simultaneously reliable and tentative.”
(8)

-How
can something be both reliable and tentative?
Tentative means uncertain.

-“With new evidence and
interpretation, old ideas are replaced or
supplemented by newer ones.”(8)

-This statement about science
is well known. It seems like we constantly here the
phrase “New evidence shows…” One year we are told
that carbs are good; the next year we are told that
carbs are bad. The fact is, science will never
provide the answers people seek.

-Only the Bible is unchanging
and reliable.

LK
21:33“ Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words
will not pass away.

Luke
21:33 (NASB)

JN
17:17“ …Your word is truth.

John
17:17 (NASB)

The Scientific
Method

Real science must conform to a
system known as the scientific method.

We defined the scientific
method earlier as: principles and procedures for the
systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the
recognition and formulation of a problem, the
collection of data through observation and
experiment, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses. (10)

-This system provides a
framework in which scientists can analyze
situations, explain certain phenomena, and answer
certain questions.

-The flow chart to the right
shows the scientific method process.

When data is found inconsistent
with a hypothesis, the hypothesis might be
discarded, or it might be modified until it is
consistent with all data that has been collected.

When a large amount of data is
collected and the hypothesis is consistent with all
of the data, then the hypothesis becomes a theory.

As more and more data relevant
to the theory gets collected, the theory can be
tested over and over again. If several generations
of collected data are all consistent with the
theory, it eventually attains the status of a
scientific law.

Limitations of the
Scientific Method

If a hypothesis survived
scientific scrutiny and became a theory, and that
theory went on through more scientific scrutiny and
became a law, isn't it 100% reliable?…No, not at
all.

-In order to test hypotheses
and theories, scientists must gather data.

-In order to gather data, they
must perform experiments and observations.

-Since these experiments and
observations are designed and performed by imperfect
people, the experiments might be flawed, the data
collected might be flawed, and/or the date might be
misinterpreted.

-As a result, even though
there might be an enormous amount of data supporting
a scientific law, if the data is flawed, the law is
most likely wrong.

-The following statement is
made on NASA’s website, “Stellar evolution theory
and observations of globular clusters (believed to
contain the oldest stars in the galaxy) give
estimates for the ages of the stars of 15-18 billion
years. The distance scale measurements and big bang
theory suggest the universe is 8-12 billion years
old. Hence, either stellar evolution theory is
incorrect, or how we measure distances is wrong.”
(20)

-In addition, it is simply
impossible, even after centuries of experimentation,
to test all implications of a scientific law
completely. Thus, even though years and years of
experimentation exist in support of a scientific
law, some person somewhere will probably devise an
experiment in which the data contradicts the law.

-The end result is that
scientific laws can be demonstrated false when the
experiments that support them are shown to be
flawed, or when someone finds a new kind of
experiment that contradicts the law (i.e.
Spontaneous Generation and classic
Darwinism/gradualism).

Scientists are certain that
some of the things they are learning today will
someday be proven to be wrong. That is the nature of
science, as stated in the quotes above.

If scientific laws are not 100%
reliable, what is?

-The only thing in the
universe that is 100% reliable is the Word of God.

-The Bible contains truths
that will never be shown to be wrong, because those
truths come directly from the Creator of the
universe.

-Those who put their faith in
the Bible will never be disappointed, because it is
never wrong.

BODY

There are only two possible explanations for how the
ori­gin of the universe and life came into
existence, creation, or evolution.

-Since these two models are
opposites, evidence support­ing one model can be
regarded as evidence against the other model.

-Lets look at the four laws
mentioned earlier and see what model they support.

1.First Law of
Thermodynamics

First Law of
Thermodynamics: Matter and energy can
neither be created nor destroyed.

All matter and energy in the
universe is being conserved (the total sum is
constant). Another way of stating this is: Nothing
is now coming into existence or going out of
existence; matter and ener­gy may be converted one
into the other, but there is no net increase or
decrease in the combined total of what exists.

-Robert Gange, Ph.D., and
research scientist states: “The First Law teaches
that a natural process cannot bring into existence
something from nothing. If the First Law is correct,
which seems to be the case, and if the universe had
a begin­ning, which seems to be scientifically
accepted, then one con­clusion is that something
unnatural created the universe....” (11, pg. 18)

If matter and energy is neither
being created nor destroyed in the universe, where
did the original matter and energy come from?

-There is no known scientific
process for how matter could come into existence
from nothing.

-This means that evolutionists
rely on faith that the origin of matter somehow came
into exis­tence through some natural materialistic
process.

Does the Bible agree with the
first law of thermodynamics?…Yes

-The Bible does have an
answer: In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth. As
Christians, we accept this by faith.

Conclusion:

-The First Law of
Thermodynamics shows that there is no physical
process where matter or energy could come into
existence from nothing.

-Without evidence,
evolutionists are left with a hole in their faith
assertion that matter came into existence through
some natural materialistic process.

-This leads to the following
deduction:

-The Bible contains many
miracles, but there is a miracle maker - God.

HEB
11:3By faith we understand that the worlds were
prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen
was not made out of things which are visible.

Hebrews
11:3 (NASB)

-Clearly the model of
evolution not only lacks a scientific explanation
for the origin of matter, but it is also a faith
that requires miracles, but has no miracle maker.

Evolution contradicts the First
Law of Thermodynamics and Creation agrees with the
law.

2.Second Law of
Thermodynamics

Second Law of
Thermodynamics: Energy goes from a state of
useable energy to a state of less useable energy for
doing work in an isolated system.

The second law of
thermodynamics has many different relationships,
such as:

-A measure of disorder.

-Usable energy is running out.

-Information tends to get
scrambled.

-Order tends towards disorder.

-A random jumble will not
organize itself.

The second law teaches that
everything in the universe is losing energy for
doing useful work, or wearing out.

Going back to the definition of
the second law, what is meant by the word
“system?”

-A system can be anything we
define it to be. For example, the earth is a system,
and a human body is a system.

-There are two types of
systems:

1.Open systems:
An open systemcan exchange both matter and
energy with its surroundings. Matter and energy can
be added to or taken out of the system.

-The earth and our bodies are
examples of open sys­tems. Energy is constantly
being added to the earth and our bod­ies from the
sun. Each time we eat or drink we are adding energy
to our bodies.

2.Isolated systems:
An isolated systemcannot exchange matter or
energy with its surroundings. Absolutely no matter
or energy can be added to, or taken out of an
isolated system.

-The only truly isolated
sys­tem is the universe. Nothing comes into the
universe from out­side and nothing goes out of the
universe, it is totally isolated.

The creationist's classic
argument is that evolution violates the Second Law
of Thermodynamics because the second law states that
everything is running down, getting less complex and
less organized.

-The model of evolution
requires that everything is getting more organized
and complex such as: the big bang expansion of the
universe to cause order and complex structures such
as stars, planets, and galaxies, lifeless chemicals
organizing into a living cell, a cell evolving into
a multi-cellular organism, a fish into an amphibian,
reptiles into birds, and ape-like creatures into
humans.

-The typical evolutionist's
rebuttal is that evolution does not violate the
second law because the second law only describes how
energy operates in an isolated system and the earth
is an open system.

-Since energy (the sun) can be
added to an open system (the earth), things can
become more ordered and complex. Here are two
examples of things becoming more ordered and
complex:

1.An animal embryo growing into
a full adult.

2.An acorn growing into a tree.

-The second law only mentions
working in an isolated sys­tem. Since we live in an
open system, energy can be added allowing the embryo
and the acorn to grow and become more complex.
Therefore, evolution does not violate the second
law.

Despite this argument, the
model of evolution still violates the second law of
thermodynamics. The addition of energy into an open
system is neces­sary, but not sufficient to perform
the work needed to build complex structures such as
proteins and cells.

-In order for life to form and
become more ordered and com­plex, four mechanisms
are needed:

1.An open system

2.A source of energy

3.A mechanism to capture and
convert energy into a form use­ful for life

4.A mechanism to utilize the
converted energy for metabolic work

A Look at
Mechanisms

A naturalists argument that
evolution does not violate the second law of
thermodynamics does not address the following two
mechanisms:

A mechanism to capture and convert energy
into a form use­ful for life

If all we have is an open
system and a source of energy, com­plex structures
used in life such as proteins and DNA will not
develop from simple molecules.

-There must be a mechanism
available to capture the energy and specify its use.

-All cells have a mechanism to
capture, store, and transform energy. If this
mech­anism is not available, then the addition of
energy alone will not result in life.

-The development of simple
molecules into complex structures and living
organisms has never been observed.

-Without a mechanism to
capture energy, no amount of energy input will cause
anything to become more complex. If you can't
capture it you can't use it.

A mechanism to utilize the converted energy
for metabolic work

Once energy has been captured
and transformed to potential chemical energy, there
must be other mechanisms that utilize it to perform
metabolic work.

-Without mechanisms to utilize
the captured energy, simple molecules will not
produce complex molecules such as proteins and
DNA.

It Takes More Than
Energy to Become More Complex

To build complex systems we
must have mechanisms to capture raw energy, convert
it into use­ful energy, and then be able to use the
energy.

-What evolutionary force, or
chance process, gave rise to the encoded information
that instructs the synthesis of tens of thousands of
molecular machines and coordinates their functions?

-Physicist and evolutionist
Paul Davies states: “Merely specifying a source
of useful energy does not of itself offer an
explanation for how the ordering process happens. To
do that, one needs to identify the exact mechanisms
that will couple the reservoir of available energy
to biologically relevant processes.” (13, pg.
54)

Now let's revisit the two
examples supplied by the evolutionist which
supposedly demonstrate that evolution does not
violate The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

1.The animal embryo growing
into an adult.

2.An acorn growing into a tree.

-Both of these examples miss
the question of how life first origi­nated.

-Both examples already contain
the mechanisms for captur­ing and converting energy
and utilizing it in life processes. The evolutionist
must explain how these extremely complex mecha­nisms
originated.

-In both examples, the embryo
and the acorn already contain immense amounts of
information stored in their DNA. This
information directs the development, growth,
maintenance and reproduction of each organism.

-The information in the
DNA provides all the instruc­tions for synthesizing
all the molecular machines needed to carry out these
processes. Where did DNA come from? Animals, humans,
and plants (embryos and seeds) already contain the
information that tells them how to capture and use
the energy.

-What about the fact that
eventually the adult animal and the adult tree will
wear out and die?

Conclusion:

-The model of evolution has no
answer for where information came from or how
complexity arose.

-The Bible exactly
agrees with what we observe in the universe.

-In Genesis chapter
three (the fall), God places a curse on the ground.

GE 3:17…Cursed is the ground because of you;

Genesis
3:17 (NASB)

-In Romans we read that
the whole of creation is under the curse.

RO 8:22For we know that the whole creation groans and
suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Romans
8:22 (NASB)

-Even scientists recognize
this fact. “When considering the source of this
information, we can now for­mulate the following
theorem, which is based on research of many
thousands of years: There is no known law of nature,
no known process and no known sequence of events
which can cause information to orig­inate by itself
in matter.” (14, pg. 106-107)

Evolution contradicts the
Second law of Thermodynamics and Creation agrees
with the law.

3.The Law of Cause and
Effect

Law of Cause and Effect:
Every effect must have an equal to or greater than
cause.

If every effect must have a
cause, then what caused the original mat­ter to
suddenly begin expanding in the big bang? Where did
the matter come from?

-Evolutionists have no
scientific answer for this event/effect.

-Evolutionists assume that it
happened based on unverified assumptions, but not by
observable science.

-The following statement is
made on NASA’s website: “Although the Big Bang
Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be
proved; consequently, leaving a number of tough,
unanswered questions.” (15)

-Since the event was not
observed, nor can it be repeated, evolutionists must
ultimately rely on faith that it occurred and are
forced to make statements such as:

-“To the average person it
might seem obvious that nothing can happen in
nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in
fact, something.” (16, pg. 35)

-“All matter plus all
gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So
the universe could come from nothing because it is,
fundamentally, nothing.” (16, pg. 36)

-“First there is nothing –
not time, not space, not even emptiness, since there
is no space to be empty. Then, from this void, this
utter nothingness so complete that no word can make
it imaginable, springs…a universe, suddenly there,
but far smaller than the smallest dust mote.”
(22, pg. 12)

-Since the model of evolution
does not allow for faith, materialists are left with
the challenge to demonstrate how the Law of Cause
and Effect can be in agreement with evolution.
However, current theories are in direct conflict
with statements such as this one found in the
National Science Teachers Association position
statement on evolution:

-“Explanations that are not
consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be
tested empirically are not a part of science. As a
result, explanations of natural phenomena that are
not based on evidence but on myths, personal
beliefs, religious values, and superstitions are not
scientific.” (8)

-According to their own
statement neither the origin of life, or the origin
of the universe is science, but a myth, personal
belief, or religion.

The Bible has an answer for the
origin of the universe. Throughout the Bible there
is a consistent answer that has never had to change.

COL
1:16For by Him all things were created, both in the
heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all
things have been created through Him and for Him.

Colossians 1:16 (NASB)

NE 9:6“ You alone are the
LORD.
You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens
with all their host, The earth and all that is on
it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life
to all of them And the heavenly host bows down
before You.

Nehemiah 9:6 (NASB)

Thomas Aquinas (12th century monk from
near Naples, Italy, 1225 – 1274) makes the following
statement about the law of cause and effect: “In
the world of sense we find there is an order of
efficient causes. There is no case known (nor
indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to
be the efficient cause of itself, because in that
case it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Therefore it is necessary to admit a
first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the
name of God.” (17, pg. 13)

-Translation…Not only
is it possible that God exists, but it is logically
necessary that He exist for anything to exist at
all.

The Bible teaches that God is
the first great cause. The Bible has a miracle
maker, God, Who called all things into existence by
His great power.

Evolution again requires a
miracle with no miracle maker. Evolution contradicts
the Law of Cause and Effect and Creation agrees with
the law.

4.The Law of
Biogenesis

Law of Biogenesis:
Life only comes from life.

This is a natural law of
science. No one has ever observed an exception to
this law.

-However, evolutionists claim
that life arose from non-living chemicals about 3.5
billion years ago.

-This is strictly a matter of
faith. Scientists have not even come close to being
able to demon­strate how the basic building blocks
of life (amino acids) could have assembled together
in the correct order to make one single protein
useful for life.

The Bible exactly agrees with
this known law. God created all life.

JN 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.

JN 1:2He was in the beginning with God.

JN 1:3All things came into being through Him, and apart
from Him nothing came into being that has come into
being.

John
1:1-3 (NASB)

Evolutionist and biochemist
Klaus Dose sums up the situa­tion about the origin
of life in this statement: “More than 30 years of
experimentation on the origin of life in the fields
of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a
better perception of the immensity of the problem of
the origin of life on earth rather than to its
solution. At present all discussions on principle
theories and experiments in the field either end in
stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” (18)

Evolution contradicts the Law
of Biogenesis and Creation agrees with the law.

What is life?

Scientists have developed
several criteria for life. If something meets all of
these criteria, then scientifically it is alive. If
it fails to meet even one of the criteria, it is not
alive. These criteria are:

1.All life forms contain
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).

2.All life forms have a method
by which they extract energy from their surroundings
and convert it into energy that sustains them.

3.All life forms can sense
changes in their surroundings and respond to those
changes.

4.All life forms reproduce.

Defining the criteria for life is important, but
what about the question a step above that?…What is
it that makes something alive?

What Is It That
Makes Something Alive?

-If we chemically analyzed an
organism, gathered together all of the chemicals
contained in it and mixed them together, we would
not have a living organism.

-Life is more than a
collection of chemicals. The “what” that
separates life from non-life is still a mystery to
modern science.

-Rodney Brooks, director of
MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory makes the
following statement, “With the
success of molecular biology explaining the
mechanisms of life we have lost sight of the
question one level up. We do not have any good
answers at a more systems level of what it takes for
something to be alive. We can list general
necessities for a system to be alive, but we can not
predict whether a given configuration of molecules
will be alive or not.” (19)

-As Christians the “what”
that makes something alive is an easy question
to answer.

-It is the creative power of
God.

GE 2:7Then the
LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being.

Genesis
2:7 (NASB)

PS 36:9For with You is the fountain of life;

Psalm
36:9 (NASB)

PS
104:30You send forth Your Spirit, they are
created;

Psalm
104:30 (NASB)

ISA
42:5Thus says God the
LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who
spread out the earth and its offspring, Who
gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those
who walk in it,

Isaiah
42:5 (NASB)

HEB 1:3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact
representation of His nature, and upholds all
things by the word of His power.

Hebrews
1:3 (NASB)

Some creative power must be
exercised in order to take lifeless chemicals and
use the information in DNA to make a living
organism. Of course, only God has such creative
power, and that is why all life comes from Him. ­

Science will never be able to
uncover the "what" that makes life possible.

-At some point in the future,
scientists might be able to catalog every chemical
that makes up a living organism.

-At some farther-off point in
the future, scientists might even decode the
information stored in DNA and determine all
of the instructions necessary to form those
chemicals into a living organism.

-Even after those incredible
feats, however, science would be no closer to
creating life.

-Without the creative power of
God, lifeless chemicals will never become a living
organism.

The Theory of
Evolution, What is a Theory?

It is often maintained that
evolution is a valid theory, even a fact in many
textbooks.

-But what is a theory?

-What makes a theory valid?

-What level of confidence
should we have in a theory?

We defined a theory earlier as:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle or body of principles offered to explain
phenomena. (10) Theories must: make accurate
predictions, not have any known contradictions, and
be repeatable.

The theory of evolution
however, is:

-Based on mutations (random
occurrences), it cannot make dependable predictions.

-Happened in the past, it is
not repeatable.

-The origin of life, the big
bang, or one species evolving into a new species,
are all unobserved claims.

There are also many known
contradictions with evolution in the areas of
cosmology, the origin of life, and the fossil
record, to name a few.

Does evolution really qualify
as a theory?…It really qualifies more as a
hypothesis or a model.

-Scientists, however, will
take offence if someone says, “evolution is just
a theory.” What is usually meant when this
statement is made is that evolution is not a proven
fact and should not be promoted as such.

How to Test a
Scientific Theory

Since evolution does not,
according to the definition, qualify as a scientific
theory, how much confidence should we have in the
model of evolution? How much confi­dence should we
have in the model of creation?

To help explain the validity or
confidence level of a scientific theory cer­tain
criteria can be applied. These criteria include:

The process for how the event occurred.

The number of assumptions involved.

The predictive capability.

1.The Process

What is the process, or
mechanism, that could cause:

-The universe to come into
existence?

-The complexity and
organization in the universe?

-The origin of life?

Since evolution is claimed to
be a scientific theory the answer must be found
using scientific processes.

-However, the evolution model
has no scientific answer to these questions, it is
all speculation.

-There are no scientific
explanations for something from nothing. Conditions
for this in the big bang theory are really nothing
more than philosophical statements.

-Concerning the origin of life
itself the transition between lifeless chemicals and
organized biological metabolism, there is no
evi­dence at all.

Since evolution is based on
materialism there is a hole in the model. What does
this mean? It means the evolutionists rely on faith
that somehow a process or mechanism will be
discovered. In other words, the model of evolution
fails the process test.

The creation model has a
process to answer the questions for criteria 1…God.

-Even though this answer is a
faith-based answer, it is a reasonable faith because
the creation model agrees with the known laws of
science.

Confidence Level for Criteria 1: The Process

-Evolution Low

-There is no naturalistic
process for the origin of matter, or life.

-Creation High

-The creation model has faith
in a mir­acle maker (God) and scientific research
supports that the ori­gin of matter and life require
a Creator.

2.Assumptions Involved

The model of evolution makes
many assumptions, to name just a few:

-The assumption that matter
and energy can create themselves.

-The assumption that there was
some first great cause that made the universe expand
into existence.

-The assumption that life
could come from lifeless chemicals.

-The assumption that the
Second Law of Thermodynamics can be circumvented.

-The assumption that there is
no God.

-The assumption that all
things can be explained through naturalistic
processes.

The model of creation makes one
assumption. That God is the Creator and Sustainer of
all things.

COL
1:16For by Him all things were created, both in the
heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all
things have been created through Him and for Him.

COL
1:17He is before all things, and in Him all things
hold together.

Colossians 1:16-17 (NASB)

Confidence Level for Criteria 2: Assumptions
Involved

-Evolution Low

-The model of evolution is
almost entirely based on assumptions.

-Creation High

-There is only one assumption
made.

3.Predictive Capability

Since evolution is based on
natural processes, chance, and vast amounts of time,
the predictive capability is very low. Chance
occurrences do not have predictive capability.

The creation model is based on
a purposeful, Intelligent Designer-God.

RO 8:28And we know that God causes all things to work
together for good to those who love God, to those
who are called according to His purpose.

Romans
8:28 (NASB)

EPH
1:11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been
predestined according to His purpose who works all
things after the counsel of His will,

Ephesians 1:11 (NASB)

EPH
3:11
This was in accordance with the eternal purpose
which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Ephesians 3:11 (NASB)

Changeability

A subset of predictability is
how often a model has to change. If a model is
constantly changing, then how can we say it has a
good capability to predict what we observe?

The model of evolution is an
ever-changing model. It is con­stantly being
refined, added to, and discarding ideas based on
“better understanding.” For example, the
evo­lution model once taught, and sometimes still
teaches, that each of the fol­lowing were facts
supporting evolution:

-Ramapithecus, Piltdown man,
Nebraska man.

-Uniformitarianism - The
concept that geological processes occur by the
action of natural laws that are always the same, and
by processes that can be observed today.

-Coal and oil take millions of
years to develop.

-Over 100 vestigial organs in
the human body (i.e., the appendix and tonsils) were
useless organs.

-The coelacanth was a missing
link between fish and amphibians.

-Peppered moths were examples
of evolution (species chang­ing into new species).

-Recapitulation (the idea that
the human embryo undergoes stages of animal
evolution)

-The Miller experiment proved
how life could start.

-The Steady State theory for
the universe.

Each of the above has been
scientifically demonstrated to be wrong. In each
case the model of evolution has had to abandon these
ideas, or continues to hold on to them in some
cases.

Does the Bible meet the test
for changeabili­ty?…Yes. The Word of God will last
forever.

The Word of God has also stood
the test of time. Manuscript evidence, archaeology,
and science have repeatedly verified the accuracy
and trustworthiness of the Bible. Not a single
message has changed in the thousands of years since
the first writings. We will look at these latter in
the course.

Confidence Level for Criteria 3: Predictive
Capability

-Evolution Low

-Random chance occurrences
have no predictive capability and evolution is
constantly changing. If it is constantly changing,
how can we know when it is correct?

-Creation High

-It agrees with and predicts
the known laws of science and has never had to
change.

CONCLUSION

Is Evolution
Science?

Now let's go back to the
statement, "evolution is science and creation is
religion."…Not true.

-Evolution conflicts with many
laws of science. In each case evolution cannot be
explained using empirical science and therefore must
be accepted by faith.

-However, the Bible agrees
with the laws of science. This makes the Bible the
more scientific model.

-Evolution cannot explain the
origin of matter.

-Evolution cannot explain the
origin of vast amounts of ener­gy and complexity in
the universe.

-Evolution cannot explain the
origin of life.

-Evolution has no cause for
the origin of the universe. What caused everything?

-Evolution conflicts with
known laws of science.

So what is evolution?…It is
a strongly held religious faith.

Science
and Why It Matters What We Believe

If the Bible is not true
history, then as Christians, we have no foundation.
There would be no purpose for life. There would be
no answers to the important worldview questions
we’ve asked before.

PS 11:3If the foundations are destroyed, What can the
righteous do?”

Psalm
11:3 (NASB)

If what is being taught to
support evolution is not scientifical­ly true or is
misleading, then people will not understand the true
nature of God and will become susceptible to a
corrupt and false worldview.

REFERENCES

1.It Matters What We Believe
by Mike Riddle, 2003

2.It All begins with Genesis
by Sheila Richardson, 2002

3.The New Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James
Strong (1822-1894), 1996